In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog. Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.

In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.

hey mm, technically in Canada the photos belong to the one who does the hiring, however those rights can be signed away and mist if not all photos reclaim that right with out letting the clients the factual law, there just tell them that on there contract that the photg holds all rights, and if the correct owner wants them then there prices up way up, so please have you facts correct.

While I am not a wedding photographer (main business is sport). I do from time to time take on photographers wishing to gain some experience (usually from the perspective of adding to the freelancers we might use). If we do, the agreement is always that their work on the day is ours, they have no commercial rights to the images that they take, they may have images for their folio and self promotion purposes only. Also get them to sign a non compete form (stop them approaching clients afterward and offering their services).

Ethically I find what the OP is doing very dubious, the pro has taken him along on his job so that the OP can gain some experience.

If the OP is a portrait photographer - how would he react if he allowed a photographer to learn the ropes. Then the learner sold their work (taken at his studio) directly to one of his clients. I would guess that he would not be very happy.

Regardless of what you may have agreed or not (by the sounds of not), standard business practice is that you are on the job for the pro that has taken you along to his wedding. Even in the absence of an expect agreement, implicitly and ethically you have no commercial rights.

Ideally you should contact the photographer and advise them what has gone on and direct the bride back to them and be done with it.

If you do get into this business there will be a time when you will need to call on someone to help out. Having a reputation of taking clients is hardly likely to help your cause. Reputation is everything.

It sounds like the pro had 2 opportunities to include the second's photos in the porfolio. Once when the initial agreement was made "you can post them on your website after i include the ones i want in the portfolio" or "i dont care you can post them on your website" are two different things. Again when the pictures were shown to him, thought they were good but didn't want any of them to present to the bride?

Did the bride contact the pro and attempt to acquire the second's photos that were not presented to her? Did the photographer refuse? either that or the bride is trying to scam a discount on prints. Otherwise the pro would have contacted the OP about the photos before the bride did.

It sounds like the pro had 2 opportunities to include the second's photos in the porfolio. Once when the initial agreement was made "you can post them on your website after i include the ones i want in the portfolio" or "i dont care you can post them on your website" are two different things. Again when the pictures were shown to him, thought they were good but didn't want any of them to present to the bride?

Did the bride contact the pro and attempt to acquire the second's photos that were not presented to her? Did the photographer refuse? either that or the bride is trying to scam a discount on prints. Otherwise the pro would have contacted the OP about the photos before the bride did.

They are good questions but that does not change the fact fact the OP was only there at the invitation of the the pro and simply to gain experience (not make money off the bride). What the pro does with their images and the OP's images is their business. I agree that it seems strange that the pro has not included any of the OP's images. The Op needs to provide a bit more detail on what the agreement was with the pro. Yet I am very surprised that the OP being a photographer already would see this as an opportunity for himself.

Interesting ethics discussion, but there are so many 'facts' we don't know and must therefore assume. Weddings are generally 'by invitation only' events. Assuming OP was not on the guest list, he has to have been an 'associate' or 'employee' of the contract photographer to be at the wedding -- however informal the agreement between OP & contracted pro might have been. IMO any contact with the bride should have been via the contracted PRO.

As mentioned in other responses it's possible the bride might be trying to scam some lower cost prints -- we don't know the terms of Pro's agreement and whether it was a package deal or lots of income was presumed to be via print charges. So no way to guess on that.

It's also possible the bride selected the wrong photographer initially. For weddings, photographic style can be critical. Comment by OP that the bride was frustrated by Pro's time setting up shots, she wanted more casual shots. Reminds me of my son's wedding. We suggested a good friend as photographer -- someone who does 30-50 weddings a year and has been at it for decades. His formals are always excellent and his wife second shoots the more casual stuff. But our future daughter-in-law wanted someone to do more 'arty' stuff and was afraid it would take too long to do really good formals. Plus she wanted a DVD of all the shots so her family could do their own scrapbooking. (Our friend will not release his files.) Bottom line, they got what they wanted. Their run-and-gun 'tog did all the formals in record time -- so what if Uncle Harry's tie is all askew and Aunt Martha has a strange expression. Now a few years later the arty stuff looks stale and they wish they had better shots of the family and the wedding party. Style matters.

Here is a slight twist on the question. Many of you have weighed in on what the OP should do in response to his question.

If you are a pro, and someone who tagged along with you on a shot to learn from you actually approached you afterwards with the OPs dilemma, but in this case, he deferred to your decision. What would you do or tell your apprentice?

Just curious.

Nope. If I'm a pro... I have an agreement on what to do with the images that the tag-a-long takes. In this case, I would set this expectation: I get a full copy of their images and I am the sole individual who speaks to MY client. I will do all the post production and I will sell their images. But I will provide them 1/2 of the the money I make off of the image.

My 1/2 cut is warranted by the post production, the marketing, and the acquisition of the job.

If the client solicits images from the tag-a-long, the tag-a-long should express appreciation and direct them to me.

If I'm a pro... I expect a professional relationship with my customers and from my "employees". Leave no questions unanswered.

I have a lady friend who has a 60D and a 17-40mm lens. She does weddings and I've volunteered to help her just for S___z and giggs. As described in my signature... my gear blows hers away... so the look of my photos should be more impressive.

In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog. Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.

In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.

hey mm, technically in Canada the photos belong to the one who does the hiring, however those rights can be signed away and mist if not all photos reclaim that right with out letting the clients the factual law, there just tell them that on there contract that the photg holds all rights, and if the correct owner wants them then there prices up way up, so please have you facts correct.

I think this changed in 2012 if I understand what you mean.If I am mistaken, please let me know. This is important topic.Thanks in advance.I know as well that they tried to fight back but I don't know if they won or not and some of them refuse to hire you if you don't give up your copyright.The exception is employer/employee (example photojournalists who have established anual salary), which is different from hiring/hired (example an advertisement campaign- one time deal).

The Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators (CAPIC) would like to congratulate all Canadian photographers in Canada on this important date and pivotal achievement in the photographic industry. As of today, Canadian photographers now officially own the copyright to all of their work whether the photograph is commissioned or not, thanks to the new Copyright law.

(As for the assistant/2nd shooter, my interpretation is that a bride hires a photo company as a whole on that day and all the photos taken should be available to her according to whatever contract the pro agreed with her, otherwise it would be the end of assisting, I would prefer a joint-venture. Assuming that your assistant is a female, she could be the best person for getting ready shots with the bride and you, the male, with the gents. You wouldn't have much left if she is authorized to sell those separately.)

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

To me it seems like the Bride is looking into you for a better deal because you were the second shooter. Perhaps your prices might be lower. But what I don't understand is how she knows your photos were not included in the original set given by the event photographer...she must have been told by the event photographer or yourself you were a "tag along" so to speak where the photos were separate...I'd give the event photographer a call and let him know what's up with trying to side step him.. Maybe split the difference with him...

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

+1

I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters ]

WOW - ok I have been reading CR for 3 years now - never posted. BUT after reading this thread I felt compelled to finally register. I mean just WOW. I am not a professional but a heavy photo enthusiast and I mean seriously Chriswolf - your true colors are showing in this post. It is now so obvious that your ethics and morals are at best questionable. After 7 pages of very good advice that is the conclusion you came to?!? That everyone is biased against you?!? Your judgement is totally clouded by ego and $ - how can you not see that? You could not have got the shots you did without being a guest of the professional. You could not have got the same shots because you probably had full access like he or she did to the wedding party, which you wouldn't have had otherwise. I just cannot understand why you should think that you should be REWARDED for being there as a guest! Even with you emailing the pro you obviously are still hoping for compensation. You have completely turned this whole situation around in your head from being thankful for a learning experience to feeling superior and feeling as if you should be paid. You should have explained to the bride that any photos that were taken during the wedding should be handled through the photographer that was hired. If she did not like any of his photos that is his problem but by undermining him, now you have made it yours. You really need to think about what people are telling you here. However like I said earlier it is pretty apparent what your true colors already are. I am just stunned.........

edit: also Chris ... one important point is you were NOT the second shooter. You were not the paid assistant - you were lucky to be able to shadow as a guest. Just unbelievable.

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

+1

I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters ]

WOW - ok I have been reading CR for 3 years now - never posted. BUT after reading this thread I felt compelled to finally register. I mean just WOW. I am not a professional but a heavy photo enthusiast and I mean seriously Chriswolf - your true colors are showing in this post. It is now so obvious that your ethics and morals are seriously questionable. After 7 pages of very good advice that is the conclusion you came to?!? That everyone is biased against you?!? Your judgement is totally clouded by ego and $ - how can you not see that? You could not have got the shots you did without being a guest of the professional. You could not have got the same shots because you probably had full access like he or she did to the wedding party, which you wouldn't have had otherwise. I just cannot understand why you should think that you should be REWARDED for being there as a guest! Even with you emailing the pro you obviously are still hoping for compensation. You have completely turned this whole situation around in your head from being thankful for a learning experience to feeling superior and feeling as if you should be paid. You should have explained to the bride that any photos that were taken during the wedding should be handled through the photographer that was hired. If she did not like any of his photos that is his problem but by trying to undermine him now you have made it yours. You really need to think about what people are telling you here. However like I said earlier it is pretty apparent what your true colors already are. Wow I am just stunned.........

edit: also Chris ... one important point is you were NOT the second shooter. You were not the paid assistant - you were lucky to be able to shadow as a guest. Just unbelievable.

First of all WOW and just WOW I already told the pro about the issue WOW and I also asked to the bride if she told the pro that she contacted me asking for my photos and she said yes.

You guys have to be calm and relaxed I'm not here to scam or undermine anyone, I already told you and I don't want to say it again, I just wanted to ask an opinion and yes maybe I was wrong to write the topic in that way and I've should have wrote: How can I handle this situation?You are sadly accusing me for something that it didn't happen.I don't know the law neither the business very well that's why I came here looking for the right thing to do and not to be sentenced.